Discussion
DanielSan said:
Car-Matt said:
Mansell had to re mortgage his house at one stage......
Also I think for Stroll , its no different to anyone else bringing a backer, it just happens to be his father. If he is average and competent then what was Perez over the weekend because he didn't put any manners on Stroll at any time this weekend.........
I could well be alone in this but personally I'm giving Stroll a reset this year regarding his ability, he's now in a car that will be developed and likely developed in a way that works, he's up against a known quick driver as a team mate. If he at least matches him then no one can argue he doesn't deserve to be in F1, if he beats him then it's fair to say the kid is pretty dsmn good. Also I think for Stroll , its no different to anyone else bringing a backer, it just happens to be his father. If he is average and competent then what was Perez over the weekend because he didn't put any manners on Stroll at any time this weekend.........
REALIST123 said:
Munter said:
thegreenhell said:
It was only a brief shot, I think a few laps into the race when they showed all the replays of the start. There was a shot from behind the car showing a front wing spiralling up into the air.
The sky team mis reported it as Kubica hitting the renault front wing. Despite us seeing both sides of the wing and neither being bright yellow, and Kubica being in the wrong location and without a front wing at that point. But I guess you can't expect too much on their first day.Kubica ran into the back right of Gasly in turn one. His wing went under the car and stayed there until he’d exited turn two when it came out from under the left side of his car and briefly up a little way into the air.
Croft got it all wrong. He first said that it was Russell hitting Ricciardo’s wing. Then he ‘corrected’ himself to say it was Kubica hitting Ricciardo's wing.
He also said at one point that Russell and Kubica had collided.
He probably said Russell hit it because the caption on screen said it was Russell.
glazbagun said:
I'm of a mind to agree, but given how close Ocon and Perez would often get, I'd find it hard to avoid conspiracy theories if Perez gets slaughtered every race.
Even with his dad as team owner it'd be a massive own goal to hamper Perez car just to make his son look good. When points mean prizes it's a daft way to go racing. Perhaps worth saying that his dad does not own the team.
He heads a consortium of investors who collectively own the team. I am sure it would affect his friendship with the owners if he was insisting that Lance was effectively given No1 status.
I could not see Otmar going along with that idea either.
He heads a consortium of investors who collectively own the team. I am sure it would affect his friendship with the owners if he was insisting that Lance was effectively given No1 status.
I could not see Otmar going along with that idea either.
glazbagun said:
DanielSan said:
Car-Matt said:
Mansell had to re mortgage his house at one stage......
Also I think for Stroll , its no different to anyone else bringing a backer, it just happens to be his father. If he is average and competent then what was Perez over the weekend because he didn't put any manners on Stroll at any time this weekend.........
I could well be alone in this but personally I'm giving Stroll a reset this year regarding his ability, he's now in a car that will be developed and likely developed in a way that works, he's up against a known quick driver as a team mate. If he at least matches him then no one can argue he doesn't deserve to be in F1, if he beats him then it's fair to say the kid is pretty dsmn good. Also I think for Stroll , its no different to anyone else bringing a backer, it just happens to be his father. If he is average and competent then what was Perez over the weekend because he didn't put any manners on Stroll at any time this weekend.........
IN51GHT said:
It really pains me to see the struggles of Williams at the moment, they are like extended family to me, I worked there from 1999-2005 & it was a really nice place to work with great people.
What work did you do at the factory?What was the factory like in those days? You joined a couple of years after Williams last F1 Championship win, so presumably there would have been no inkling at that point, to its slow demise.
Any insights as to what is going wrong now with the car?
Fortitude said:
IN51GHT said:
It really pains me to see the struggles of Williams at the moment, they are like extended family to me, I worked there from 1999-2005 & it was a really nice place to work with great people.
What work did you do at the factory?What was the factory like in those days? You joined a couple of years after Williams last F1 Championship win, so presumably there would have been no inkling at that point, to its slow demise.
Any insights as to what is going wrong now with the car?
Mark Priestley's take on what the 'fundamental flaw' could be: https://youtu.be/i-hfD5diepE?t=1164
He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
TheDeuce said:
Mark Priestley's take on what the 'fundamental flaw' could be: https://youtu.be/i-hfD5diepE?t=1164
He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
George R said it would take a lot of time in the simulator to get a fix. That wouldn't seem to correlate with a structural (strength) problem, as the load cases don't require simulator time (with driver in the loop, at least) to zero in on.He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
skwdenyer said:
George R said it would take a lot of time in the simulator to get a fix. That wouldn't seem to correlate with a structural (strength) problem, as the load cases don't require simulator time (with driver in the loop, at least) to zero in on.
I would have thought that any fundamental design changes would require simulator time to assess the potential changes of a revised design.My assumption, which I think is fairly realistic, is that it doesn't matter what issue/cause requires the chassis to be revised, doing so will have a knock on effect on most other established parts of the car. So a lot of work for everyone, Russell and Kubica included.
However, as stated, if Mark thinks it's aero, then I'm not going to disagree. Maybe down the line the two increasingly candid drivers will be frustrated enough to reveal more..
TheDeuce said:
skwdenyer said:
George R said it would take a lot of time in the simulator to get a fix. That wouldn't seem to correlate with a structural (strength) problem, as the load cases don't require simulator time (with driver in the loop, at least) to zero in on.
I would have thought that any fundamental design changes would require simulator time to assess the potential changes of a revised design.My assumption, which I think is fairly realistic, is that it doesn't matter what issue/cause requires the chassis to be revised, doing so will have a knock on effect on most other established parts of the car. So a lot of work for everyone, Russell and Kubica included.
However, as stated, if Mark thinks it's aero, then I'm not going to disagree. Maybe down the line the two increasingly candid drivers will be frustrated enough to reveal more..
sgtBerbatov said:
They had a fundamental issue last year as well. One wonders why they've had it again this year, and one wonders further as to how they've had it happen again. They were meant to have had an investigation to work out what happened (according to the Deputy Team PR Guru Clare) so really this shouldn't have happened this year.
I know, it's all very odd. Perhaps they simply overshoot early on it terms of ambition, then with slow progress and looming deadlines, they have to compromise and wrap it all up into a car, that is flawed as a result. It gives the impression there is a lot of blame pushing and denial within the team, for this to happen again after the prior 'investigation'.I sometime wonder if an 'investigation' at Williams is a load of senior people all blaming one another, and whoever has the least convincing BS is instructed to leave. Problems sorted..? Nope, not really.
It would at least help if their press statements about it this year weren't virtually copy and paste of last years.They could at least dress it up as being a new set of mistakes, not the same voyage of discovery to find out how crap the car is each year.
What's interesting is that just before developing 'personal reasons' and 'leaving', Lowe stated that this years car was a good platform to build upon, entirely unlike last years. I wonder if the second he was out of the building, the rest of the engineering team decided all the problems were Paddy's fault, and declared the car fundamentally flawed, requiring a re-think. And in doing so, an opportunity to improve on whatever each person might worry is lacking in their own contribution.. Or maybe it really was mostly Paddy's fault. It's a question mark over his ability, whatever the truth. I hope he's not used as a scapegoat though. Partly because, it would just be unfair, but also because it's damaging for Williams to convince themselves it was mostly one persons fault, if it actually was not. And it's really very unlikely it was any one person.
TheDeuce said:
Mark Priestley's take on what the 'fundamental flaw' could be: https://youtu.be/i-hfD5diepE?t=1164
He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
I haven’t listened to Elvis yet but I really think you’ve added two and two together and gotten five on this one. He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
The new wider, longer, lower front wings are very vulnerable and the aero parts on the car in general are quite delicate hence the drivers being instructed to go easy on the car. Spares were and are obviously lacking compared to other teams, most of whom thoroughly verified the durability of those parts in Barcelona and had truckloads of spares to replace them in any case.
Williams aren’t going to arrive with a floppy tub. It’s just not possible with the load tests the tub has to endure.
I understand that you are speculating on that because of the lead time given but it sounds to me like a change in aero philosophy is required and that basically knocks on to everything and takes ages to put right, even if you know where you’ve gone wrong and which direction you should go in.
HustleRussell said:
TheDeuce said:
Mark Priestley's take on what the 'fundamental flaw' could be: https://youtu.be/i-hfD5diepE?t=1164
He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
I haven’t listened to Elvis yet but I really think you’ve added two and two together and gotten five on this one. He draws the same conclusion I did, in regard to it not being a bolt-on part that was the problem, due to the amount of time they estimate a fix taking (as a minimum). The difference in my view and his, is that he thinks it's probably an aero issue that requires a chassis change, I think, picking up on the fact the drivers were told to avoid kerbs, there may be a strength issue. Possibly both of course! But in the end, Mark is without doubt better qualified to make a guess than I am, so perhaps there is a reason he thinks aero.
If it's true and the chassis is the bottleneck to performance improvements, then that would indeed mean it's now time for us to give up on 'development progress' hopes. The chassis pretty much is the car, in as much as you can't change it without a knock on effect just about everything else. And what's the betting Williams won't or can't fund the fix this season..
This all remains speculation of course.
The new wider, longer, lower front wings are very vulnerable and the aero parts on the car in general are quite delicate hence the drivers being instructed to go easy on the car. Spares were and are obviously lacking compared to other teams, most of whom thoroughly verified the durability of those parts in Barcelona and had truckloads of spares to replace them in any case.
Williams aren’t going to arrive with a floppy tub. It’s just not possible with the load tests the tub has to endure.
I understand that you are speculating on that because of the lead time given but it sounds to me like a change in aero philosophy is required and that basically knocks on to everything and takes ages to put right, even if you know where you’ve gone wrong and which direction you should go in.
It would help us to know what parts were breaking and needing to be repaired in order to zero in on this, something we're not going to hear
HustleRussell said:
I haven’t listened to Elvis yet but I really think you’ve added two and two together and gotten five on this one.
The new wider, longer, lower front wings are very vulnerable and the aero parts on the car in general are quite delicate hence the drivers being instructed to go easy on the car. Spares were and are obviously lacking compared to other teams, most of whom thoroughly verified the durability of those parts in Barcelona and had truckloads of spares to replace them in any case.
I understand that you are speculating on that because of the lead time given but it sounds to me like a change in aero philosophy is required and that basically knocks on to everything and takes ages to put right, even if you know where you’ve gone wrong and which direction you should go in.
We should all throw our theories in to the mix. I think there probably is an aero issue, several in fact, but we can't know if the fix would require modifications to the chassis (tub) itself. Are you thinking it's the front wing that is suffering from too much vertical movement, and also has aero issues? Its plausible for sure. Just seems like they should be able to calculate a length of time to adapt that, and the subsequent adaptions that would result. A long time, but a quantifiable time. The new wider, longer, lower front wings are very vulnerable and the aero parts on the car in general are quite delicate hence the drivers being instructed to go easy on the car. Spares were and are obviously lacking compared to other teams, most of whom thoroughly verified the durability of those parts in Barcelona and had truckloads of spares to replace them in any case.
I understand that you are speculating on that because of the lead time given but it sounds to me like a change in aero philosophy is required and that basically knocks on to everything and takes ages to put right, even if you know where you’ve gone wrong and which direction you should go in.
HustleRussell said:
Williams aren’t going to arrive with a floppy tub. It’s just not possible with the load tests the tub has to endure.
Those tests focus on not failing under specific circumstances and forces. Passing the tests does not mean you have a tub that cannot deteriorate, and has no inherent design flaws. I'm not suggesting a 'floppy tub'. Merely one with an inherent floor that effects it's durability - and I'm only suggesting that as a speculative issue.skwdenyer said:
The only other thing I can think of - and this would be a real clanger if so - is if the suspension geometry is so messed up that it requires a re-think, which would (a) require a lot of design and simulator work, and (b) might well require a new tub.
It would help us to know what parts were breaking and needing to be repaired in order to zero in on this, something we're not going to hear
Whatever is breaking, it's something they were apparently able to repair during free practice running, in order to save an undamaged part for quali and race.It would help us to know what parts were breaking and needing to be repaired in order to zero in on this, something we're not going to hear
It's at the same time Kubica (I think Kubica) revealed the damage and repairs, that he also revealed the instruction to not use the kerbs. Quite a handicap for any F1 car, regardless of the cause..
TheDeuce said:
We should all throw our theories in to the mix.
What's the point? It's an anonymous message board where no one has to prove their credentials and spaffing various unfounded theories into the ether simply confuses people.I'm not suggesting if you're not an F1 technical director you can't comment but at least have the decency to asterix any wild unfounded theories as such, otherwise the casual reader may mistake you for someone who knows what they're on about
LaurasOtherHalf said:
What's the point? It's an anonymous message board where no one has to prove their credentials and spaffing various unfounded theories into the ether simply confuses people.
I'm not suggesting if you're not an F1 technical director you can't comment but at least have the decency to asterix any wild unfounded theories as such, otherwise the casual reader may mistake you for someone who knows what they're on about
Well I have done just that, I have at each stage said it's all speculative, and if any of that speculation is based on anything that is itself not entriely known, I have made a point of that too.I'm not suggesting if you're not an F1 technical director you can't comment but at least have the decency to asterix any wild unfounded theories as such, otherwise the casual reader may mistake you for someone who knows what they're on about
What's the point of discussing the sport at all without speculation? It's all speculation between races. It's borderline rude to describe speculation based on fact, as "wildly unfounded". It's not 'wildly' anything. It's not remotely 'wild' when a team starts talking about a fundamental problem that would take months to solve, to suggest it could be the tub. It could be - that's not untrue.
There is a point at which speculation does enter lala land, and becomes pointless. But there is also a point at which you can become so obsessed with appearing 'wise enough not to guess', that you're in danger of shooting down any speculation on the basis there is a reason it could be inaccurate. Which is all speculation.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff